Get an agent API key by name, automatically creating one when absent so the agent can authenticate to the server.
Get an agent API key (automatic if absent)
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "register"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not explain whether the operation creates or mutates state, whether it is idempotent, what happens if a key already exists, what authorization is required, or what the response contains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no filler, and the main action is front-loaded. Its brevity is appropriate, though the parenthetical is ambiguous rather than clarifying.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema, the definition omits key operational facts: what 'register' does on repeat calls, what 'name' represents, and what the caller receives. For an identity/key provisioning tool, that leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single optional 'name' parameter has no schema description, and the tool description does not explain what it identifies, whether it is required for new agents, or how it affects key generation. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific resource ('agent API key'), which is better than restating the tool name 'register'. However, it is unclear whether the tool creates an agent registration, retrieves an existing key, or both, and the parenthetical 'automatic if absent' adds ambiguity rather than distinguishing scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when an agent should call register versus another setup path, nor any mention of prerequisites or alternatives among the siblings. The phrase 'automatic if absent' hints at conditional behavior but does not tell the caller when to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.